I completely agree. Rogues are so versatile in what they can be, from simple explorers to pirates to thieves to conmen. Rogues should certainly have CHA as their top or second stat, though exceptions may apply, like the drow assassin with no emotion whatsoever. All rogues need to be able to talk or charm their way out of a sticky situation if their plan goes down the drain.
I completely agree. Rogues are so versatile in what they can be, from simple explorers to pirates to thieves to conmen. Rogues should certainly have CHA as their top or second stat, though exceptions may apply, like the drow assassin with no emotion whatsoever. All rogues need to be able to talk or charm their way out of a sticky situation if their plan goes down the drain.
It sounds like you want to play a Bard rather than a Rogue. A Goblin Whispers Bard feels a lot like a Rogue for the purposes of combat, but has the sort of talk/charm approach you're mentioning.
I completely agree. Rogues are so versatile in what they can be, from simple explorers to pirates to thieves to conmen. Rogues should certainly have CHA as their top or second stat, though exceptions may apply, like the drow assassin with no emotion whatsoever. All rogues need to be able to talk or charm their way out of a sticky situation if their plan goes down the drain.
It sounds like you want to play a Bard rather than a Rogue. A Goblin Whispers Bard feels a lot like a Rogue for the purposes of combat, but has the sort of talk/charm approach you're mentioning.
Hmmm... Makes me think a Bard/Rogue multiclass might prove interesting...
Rogues are the cornerstone of nothing. Their action economy is the worst of any class in the game. It can be useful to have a skill-monkey though. I admit that. That's all they're really good for though. If you're taking more than 5 levels of rogue it's for the RP not for anything they do as a class. Which is your prerogative.
that's completely the opposite of my experience in my current campaign. The Deep Gnome Rogue (L6, Thief here) is one of the best/most reliable PCs in combat.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Started playing AD&D in the late 70s and stopped in the mid-80s. Started immersing myself into 5e in 2023
The "math" is based on a model. If you're using a model that undersells the capabilities of one approach and oversells another approach, your results aren't based on "math" but on unrealistic models.
So, first of all. Your experience is just that. I can't measure it. There's probably some situation where every class is the "cornerstone" "best" class of the CAMPAIGN. House rules, GM, party and your experience as a player are all contributing factors of course. But I have no way to measure those things. Even then, I think calling the rogue a cornerstone of the game is silly. "Hallmark" more like.
There is nothing special about your build. That's just a basic level 6 rogue with a legacy race. Which tells me you are not necessarily playing by 2024 rules and that your party and/or GM dynamic is such that not much more is needed. Both of which are perfectly fine. I would argue good.
A rogue's primary feature is skill. That feature can be replaced by a skill expert fighter, ranger or wizard (probably others).
But the only objective way we have to measure the value of a class is in combat. If you're having multiple 5+ round combats per long rest at low level, then I could see the balance tipping to their favor. When the barbarians and fighters are out of their limited use abilities and the casters are low on spell slots. Rogues don't need those things.
In my experience most days have no more than a few combats, rarely longer than 4 rounds. And what you will soon find out, is that as barbarians and fighters have more of those special limited use abilities and as casters get more and better spells, your rogue will quickly be outpaced and be "best" only at rogue skills. At lower levels (like 6) what you choose to play is less significant than how well you and your DM know and follow the rules.
That doesn't make rogues bad. It has nothing to do with you. It isn't an insult to people who like rogues. I do too. That's why I'm here. But objectively speaking "best" or "cornerstone" are not words I would use to describe rogues. As dips on a fighter or ranger, they're pretty amazing actually.
I completely agree. Rogues are so versatile in what they can be, from simple explorers to pirates to thieves to conmen. Rogues should certainly have CHA as their top or second stat, though exceptions may apply, like the drow assassin with no emotion whatsoever. All rogues need to be able to talk or charm their way out of a sticky situation if their plan goes down the drain.
"That is not dead which can eternal lie;
And with strange aeons even death may die"
-H.P. Lovecraft
It depends on how your DM rules stealth. If they take a conservative interpretation of the rules, they can make hiding in combat basically useless.
What about the nerf to Thief Rogue's Fast Hands ability?
It sounds like you want to play a Bard rather than a Rogue. A Goblin Whispers Bard feels a lot like a Rogue for the purposes of combat, but has the sort of talk/charm approach you're mentioning.
Hmmm... Makes me think a Bard/Rogue multiclass might prove interesting...
Thanks for the feedback
"That is not dead which can eternal lie;
And with strange aeons even death may die"
-H.P. Lovecraft
Rogues are the cornerstone of nothing. Their action economy is the worst of any class in the game. It can be useful to have a skill-monkey though. I admit that. That's all they're really good for though. If you're taking more than 5 levels of rogue it's for the RP not for anything they do as a class. Which is your prerogative.
that's completely the opposite of my experience in my current campaign. The Deep Gnome Rogue (L6, Thief here) is one of the best/most reliable PCs in combat.
Started playing AD&D in the late 70s and stopped in the mid-80s. Started immersing myself into 5e in 2023
Depends a lot on your DM and your party. But the math has been done. The DPT is bad.
The "math" is based on a model. If you're using a model that undersells the capabilities of one approach and oversells another approach, your results aren't based on "math" but on unrealistic models.
So, first of all. Your experience is just that. I can't measure it. There's probably some situation where every class is the "cornerstone" "best" class of the CAMPAIGN. House rules, GM, party and your experience as a player are all contributing factors of course. But I have no way to measure those things. Even then, I think calling the rogue a cornerstone of the game is silly. "Hallmark" more like.
There is nothing special about your build. That's just a basic level 6 rogue with a legacy race. Which tells me you are not necessarily playing by 2024 rules and that your party and/or GM dynamic is such that not much more is needed. Both of which are perfectly fine. I would argue good.
A rogue's primary feature is skill. That feature can be replaced by a skill expert fighter, ranger or wizard (probably others).
But the only objective way we have to measure the value of a class is in combat. If you're having multiple 5+ round combats per long rest at low level, then I could see the balance tipping to their favor. When the barbarians and fighters are out of their limited use abilities and the casters are low on spell slots. Rogues don't need those things.
In my experience most days have no more than a few combats, rarely longer than 4 rounds. And what you will soon find out, is that as barbarians and fighters have more of those special limited use abilities and as casters get more and better spells, your rogue will quickly be outpaced and be "best" only at rogue skills. At lower levels (like 6) what you choose to play is less significant than how well you and your DM know and follow the rules.
That doesn't make rogues bad. It has nothing to do with you. It isn't an insult to people who like rogues. I do too. That's why I'm here. But objectively speaking "best" or "cornerstone" are not words I would use to describe rogues. As dips on a fighter or ranger, they're pretty amazing actually.
I find Treantmonk's math and logic to be sound. Here's a chart made from his data.
https://colab.research.google.com/drive/1gLxzzaSGdeiQw03mTxr898XrBUm2mvXy?usp=sharing